Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. It’s you.The jury agreed it not only exists but did so in all 34 counts.
No. It’s you who are still confused.
Maybe somewhere in the penumbra clauses there’s an exception for alleging an intent to commit some “other” crime (albeit it an unspecified other crime) which relieves the government of the burden of proof or the burden to prove its case to a unanimous jury.Wrong
Juries and Verdicts in Criminal Trials
Most of the concern over unanimity in verdicts arises from criminal trials. A long history of case law and Constitutional interpretation establishes that criminal trials must have 12 jurors. In federal court, juries must reach a unanimous verdict in all criminal proceedings.
State courts have required unanimous verdicts since 2020. Before that year, nearly all states followed the federal criminal trial procedure. Two states—Oregon and Louisiana—allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these types of verdicts in Apodaca v. Oregon (406 U.S. 404) (1972).
In 2020, the Court overturned Apodaca with Ramos v. Louisiana (140 U.S. 1390). The Court reasoned that a deeper historical examination of the criminal justice system revealed an intentional bias against some jurors. The non-unanimous verdict helped ensure guilty verdicts for African Americans by eliminating one or two African American "not-guilty" votes (Justice Kavanaugh concurrence at 1418).
The current position of federal and state courts is that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimous verdicts to convict a criminal defendant.
They only must be unanimous on the 34 counts of falsifying business records. They were. The elevating crime was discussed through the testimony.According to SCOTUS precedent in two cases on multiple charges, the jury has to be unanimous as per COTUS. cited by Greta Van Susteren and Julie Kelly.
Guilty until you prove you're innocentMaybe somewhere in the penumbra clauses there’s an exception for alleging an intent to commit some “other” crime (albeit it an unspecified other crime) which relieves the government of the burden of proof or the burden to prove its case to a unanimous jury.
WrongThey only must be unanimous on the 34 counts of falsifying business records. They were. The elevating crime was discussed through the testimony.
Let’s not forget that Cohen had already been charged with and pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations with the hush money payments. That plot is obvious at this point.
Trump wasn’t charged for the elevating crime.Dont you think the DA should KNOW what crime (s) a defendant has committed in order to charge him? Oh that's right this isnt about law and order or justice it's just about getting the big bad orange man off the ballot or "saving democracy"...
You are such a fucking joke.
The verdict will overturned it should be fast tracked before the supreme courtTrump wasn’t charged for the elevating crime.
The DA did know. It’s in the indictment. The judge outlined what they were.
It’s about your inability to understand despite me spoon feeding you.
D’oh…Wrong
Juries and Verdicts in Criminal Trials
Most of the concern over unanimity in verdicts arises from criminal trials. A long history of case law and Constitutional interpretation establishes that criminal trials must have 12 jurors. In federal court, juries must reach a unanimous verdict in all criminal proceedings.
State courts have required unanimous verdicts since 2020. Before that year, nearly all states followed the federal criminal trial procedure. Two states—Oregon and Louisiana—allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these types of verdicts in Apodaca v. Oregon (406 U.S. 404) (1972).
In 2020, the Court overturned Apodaca with Ramos v. Louisiana (140 U.S. 1390). The Court reasoned that a deeper historical examination of the criminal justice system revealed an intentional bias against some jurors. The non-unanimous verdict helped ensure guilty verdicts for African Americans by eliminating one or two African American "not-guilty" votes (Justice Kavanaugh concurrence at 1418).
The current position of federal and state courts is that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimous verdicts to convict a criminal defendant.
An adult?You’re the confused one.
None of the 34 counts would be a felony absent the uncharged and unspecified “other” crime which frankly doesn’t exist.
Have an adult explain it to you.
That wasn't the jury instructions numbnutsD’oh…
The jury was unanimous on the 34 counts charged, dupe.
Getting pissy with twatty retorts doesn’t gain you any leverage.Then stop doing it.
It was, dope.That wasn't the jury instructions numbnuts
It was specified by statute with examples given for clarity.They were “other” unspecified crimes about which the accused supposedly had some “intent.”
Don’t engage in double talk.
You know you’re full of it. We all do.
Get yourself up to speed.Wrong
And Cohen went to prison for lying.
And he was busted for lying this time
apnews.com
You can only hope anyway.The verdict will overturned it should be fast tracked before the supreme court
Why would I do that? It was not required to do so.Prove that they agreed unanimously on which (unalleged) “other” crime was supposedly committed.
The NY case didn't have anything to do with a presidential election. The verdict does tarnish one of the candidates, but that's life.Whenever you have an extraordinary situation which affects a Presidential election, the precedent is that the SCOTUS takes up the case (Bush v Gore, 2000). This is just as critical.
